OK...not to hijack my own post, but I'm posing a specific question here because I've started to see a degradation in my play at 4 or more tables.

This actually took me a while to figure out. I only started to see this after I made a resolution during my winter holiday to work on my reads, and I felt I had to play fewer tables to do so. Well, I just killed the tables over break and throughout January, but I made the mistake of starting to play more tables again this month.

So for me, apparently rock-rolling 4-6 tables of $50/100 was not as profitable as being "active" at 3 tables. With 3 tables, I not only had better reads, but I got paid off by being slightly more active. Granted, my variance is probably higher, but apparently, so is my confidence.

Anyway, this post has morphed into a PT question...does anyone know how to quantitatively prove this in PT? In other words, disect performance based on the number of concurrent games?